Children and immigration reform

[teachercd]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I would genuinely like to discuss with you why funding Ukraine is of vital importance to the United States and our future interests, if you're willing to have an honest discussion.

 

I'd be willing to give it real thought on if the continuing struggle of what appears to be a stalemate, if not slight Russian advantage currently, is worth continued investment.

The good news is that Russia has already lost soooooo much because of how pathetic and weak they look.

 

Now, we just need the final nail in the coffin!

[DevoHusker]

48 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I would genuinely like to discuss with you why funding Ukraine is of vital importance to the United States and our future interests, if you're willing to have an honest discussion.

 

I'd be willing to give it real thought on if the continuing struggle of what appears to be a stalemate, if not slight Russian advantage currently, is worth continued investment.

 

First and foremost, they are not my Country. They are not NATO. They have been known to be the most corrupt Country in Europe. But please discuss your points. I love congenial discourse. 

 

I would be more likely to approve of the funding if the numbers in the bill were all reduced. It is obscene to me when you consider another $60 billion for Ukraine, $15 billion for Isreal, and only $15 billion for our own security here in the US. It's laughable to me that we are funding to secure their border, and repel invaders from Ukraine, but not here at home. Isreal has proven they can take care of themselves. We give them about $3 billion in aid yearly, and I don't hear them or others insisting it should be more. And, I think they have tarnished their reputation by continuing to unilaterally destroy Gaza, and killing innocents by the thousands. 

 

I understand the geopolitics of wanting Ukraine to defeat Russia. I also think that the US is one of the main causes of the conflict. This article shares that view https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war 

 

I think it has been asked here before, but I can't remember. Hypothetically, what would you want the US response to be if China funded ever growing military and procure more and more armament, and fomented public outcry in an anti-US Canada? Or in an anti-US Mexico? I think I know what that answer would be.

 

Again, for the umpteenth time, just because I have these views does not mean that I am pro-Putin or in love with Russia. I would simply rather see that needs here at home are provided for first. 

[Lorewarn]

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

t is obscene to me when you consider another $60 billion for Ukraine, $15 billion for Isreal, and only $15 billion for our own security here in the US. It's laughable to me that we are funding to secure their border, and repel invaders from Ukraine, but not here at home.

 

Well, wouldn't you imagine a border that is being relentlessly attacked by one of the largest armies in the world would require more resources to secure than one that isn't?

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Isreal has proven they can take care of themselves.

 

 

Agreed.

[Archy1221]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I think Conservatives rallying around the killing of the best concessions they've had from Democrats - who currently hold a Senate MAJORITY - in 30 years is hilarious

What are you even talking about? This isn’t a safari

 

55 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

You are more than free to articulate how Republicans plan on passing a more restrictive immigration bill and get 60 Senate votes. If so, you'll find yourself with a high paying Consulting job in Washington DC.

Take the number from 5,000 and put it at 2,000 ALL INCLUDED with automatic triggers that only a bipartisan commission (equal party representation) can override and not a president.  
Allow all Federal Jurisdictions to hear cases and not just the DC Jurisdiction 

Amnesty…must have been documented to be denied amnesty from a contingent country before applying to US and remain in Mexico if Amnesty cases reach over 1,000 a day.   
Equal amount of funding for Southern Border as any funding for Ukraine and Israel security.  
No sunset on the enforcement provisions. 
 

Keep the rest of the Democrat wish list in the bill and call it good.   That wasn’t too hard 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

You're also free to articulate how the President can "enforce existing laws" that doesn't involve endless court battles and the details of which change every time a different party controls the Presidency. If you do this, you will also find yourself making gobs of money as a Consultant in Washington DC.

Wait, are you saying the US currently isn’t enforcing immigration law?  Or are you staying it is enforcing immigration law, but the Courts stop it?  
 

We seem to have over 800,000 a year overstay their visa w/o being deported.  That isn’t following immigration law.  
 

We do not deport all illegals who commit crimes.  That isn’t following immigration law.  
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I guess the Border Patrol doesn't know what they are talking about.

[DevoHusker]

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[SECHusker]

15 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

 

The cost of preventing a direct conflict with an expansionist Russia is high, but the cost of a direct conflict with Russia is higher.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

First and foremost, they are not my Country. They are not NATO. They have been known to be the most corrupt Country in Europe. But please discuss your points. I love congenial discourse. 

 

I would be more likely to approve of the funding if the numbers in the bill were all reduced. It is obscene to me when you consider another $60 billion for Ukraine, $15 billion for Isreal, and only $15 billion for our own security here in the US. It's laughable to me that we are funding to secure their border, and repel invaders from Ukraine, but not here at home. Isreal has proven they can take care of themselves. We give them about $3 billion in aid yearly, and I don't hear them or others insisting it should be more. And, I think they have tarnished their reputation by continuing to unilaterally destroy Gaza, and killing innocents by the thousands. 

 

I understand the geopolitics of wanting Ukraine to defeat Russia. I also think that the US is one of the main causes of the conflict. This article shares that view https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war 

 

I think it has been asked here before, but I can't remember. Hypothetically, what would you want the US response to be if China funded ever growing military and procure more and more armament, and fomented public outcry in an anti-US Canada? Or in an anti-US Mexico? I think I know what that answer would be.

 

Again, for the umpteenth time, just because I have these views does not mean that I am pro-Putin or in love with Russia. I would simply rather see that needs here at home are provided for first. 

I did not mean to imply that they are your country. I apologize if that was the case. Secondly, I and most people would fundamentally disagree with the CATO Institute's assessment of why Russia invaded Ukraine. They are a conservative think tank and aren't exactly unbiased. I'll do my best to summarize why helping Ukraine, a flawed former Soviet Republic, fight against Russia.

 

The first thing to understand about Russia is their geographic vulnerability from a military point of view. Russia is a massive country, however, 80% of the Russian population and economic activity lives within Western Russia - known as the Russian Core. This has been the case throughout the entirety of Russia's history. It's located here approximately (sorry for the poor circle drawn using my finger on my phone):

 

The second thing to know about this region is how vulnerable it is to foreign attack. The geography of Eastern Europe - Belarus and Ukraine- is very similar to the Great Plains in the US, it's massive and essentially flat, and the borders of which are hundreds of miles long. From a military point of view, this flank is nearly impossible to defend. Russia has been invaded multiple times throughout history, notably by Napoleon in 1812 through Belarus and again by Hitler through Ukraine in 1941 killing 30 million people - invading through the flat terrain of Belarus and Ukraine represents a massive security risk. Therefore, Russia has always sought to push its borders as far Westward as possible. 

 

The further West the border, the more secure the Russian core (circled above) becomes. Pushing the border west was the manifest destiny of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. It's why the Soviet Union invaded Poland and Finland during WWII. They seek to narrow their borders to neighbors as much as possible. 

 

 

As you can see in the map above, the Soviet Union essentially created a buffer zone protecting the Russian core. The dark red border of Russia is massive, impossible to defend. The light red borders of the Western most Soviet states is much more narrow. The Baltic sea provides protection from the northern flank, while the Black Sea south of Ukraine and the mountain range just to the West of Maldova protects the southern flank (pictured below):

 

Russian ultra-nationalists - like Putin - truly believe that the fall of the Soviet Union represented betrayal of 200 years of Russian history and sacrifice. The wars fought to create the scenario above and protecting Russia - so they can reach their destiny of being a super power - were all for naught. It is therefore critical from their perspective that Russia recreate what the Russian Empire and Soviet Union did: push the sphere of influence as far West as possible.

 

It's why the original attack plans called for an invasion of Moldova: 

 

It's why Putin said as recently last week that the Baltic States are run by Nazis. They're trying to set the stage for eventual confrontation with them. It may not be in the immediate future, but in 15 or 20 years, you can bet that they will try. 

 

In short, Ukraine chose in 2014 to leave the Russian sphere of influence. This is seen as a massive vulnerability to Russian nationalists who wish to recreate the borders of the Soviet Union to protect their flanks. They seek to undermine America's commitment to NATO in order to accomplish this. Supporting Ukraine presently sends a message that this will not be tolerated, and weakens their ability to conduct further aggressive operations.

[DevoHusker]

As usual @Dr. Strangelove while I don't necessarily agree with you on a lot of topics, you never fail to be informative. 

Thanks for the geographic/history lesson.  

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Uhhhh Chris knows no one is talking about commerce/trade when the words “close the border”  is discussed in this immigration reform bill.   Chris knows it’s in reference to closings incoming illegal or asylum seeking immigrants from entering.   But Chris now knows the mistake he let out of the bag and is not trying to cover said mistake by gaslighting and goal post moving.

Funny to hear Republicans complain about moving the goalposts on immigration reform. 
 

Hilarious, even.
 

 

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Funny to hear Republicans complain about moving the goalposts on immigration reform. 
 

Hilarious, even.
 

 

Maybe maybe not, but what I noticed is you didn’t disagree. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

24 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

As usual @Dr. Strangelove while I don't necessarily agree with you on a lot of topics, you never fail to be informative. 

Thanks for the geographic/history lesson.  

Appreciate it.

 

For the record, your worry about Ukraine, it's history of corruption, the cost of the war and what they can realistically achieve on the battlefield is highly warranted.

[Dr. Strangelove]

11 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Funny to hear Republicans complain about moving the goalposts on immigration reform. 
 

Hilarious, even.
 

 

It's even more funny when they're going to reject the most restrictive immigration compromise they're ever going to receive and simultaneously go through the dog-and-pony show of impeaching the Secretary of DHS for not being restrictive enough.